Energy meter reader trespass??

Terrylw1

uk1 wrote: »

In fact the term is fine unless it is used unreasonably. It then falls to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

If for example it were used in the way that some of the posters here believe and the consumer feels that the vagueness of the use reasonable had been unfairly abused then he could take action. Much of the rubbish spouted here needn't go that far because a householder should simply call the police as a crime would have been commited.

Reasonable means that a request is made - by appointment if neccessary - and the consumer agrees. No terms that contravene the "right to privacy" which is the main purpose of Section 8 of the Human Rights Act are legally valid. This is a !qualified right" and prevents all authorities: "and they should not enter without your permission. This applies whether or not you own your home." This effectively covers you day to day except if a crime has been commited when the police or other authorities can only enter with a warrant. It is in pursuit of compliance with the Act that magistrates need a signed statement for them to consider warrants from the police or others and any false statements are considered perjury.


I really hope that these companies start to think about this more and train these people properly before one of them gets seriously hurt.

But the point is, its in your t&c's which you agreed to. So, by doing so, you have agreed to their need to access the meter.

Its an easy issue if its inside, they can't get in without asking you each time but for outside metering, you have given them access via the t&c's.

Again, the question is "what is reasonable?" and because this isn't defined, it is open to interpretation. What 1 customer feels is reasonable may differ to another and the same goes for suppliers & their agents.

I'm not saying anything is right or wrong, but I am saying everyone who could determine what should happen has chosen to hide behind "reasonable" and that term is so often a root cause to complaints and poor process.

Again, I ask the questions a) what do they all do, b) is this new or was it this way prior to deregulation, hence these companies still follow the old rules and c) are the meter readers really at fault?

I make the point of c) because the suppliers t&c's exist and the fact its often senior management who quietly endorse the practice but let their lower management create practices without understanding.

Terrylw1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Rubbish. They don't even request the meter reading more than a month before your bill is calculated. And in most cases, if you fail to submit a reading then they just give you an estimate. Otherwise they wouldn't be saving any money, and you wouldn't get a discount on your bill.

Meter reading cycles are determined by contract with agent and renewed every X years.

Now, when you switch, the supplier sends an appointment data flow to their agent which states which cycle to use and the 1st date it begins from. This then follows what used to be know as a cycle day calendar.

What I have written is the way the industry works with readings. If you feel I am talking rubbish, I suggest you read the industry processes.

No one instructs meter reading companies to come out, it would be a poor waste of money.

Estimates occur where there is no firm reading. However, if its the scheduled time for a visit, unless a validated customer reading reaches the agents system, this will just go out.

Terrylw1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Climbing over, or unbolting physical barriers that are set in place to prevent intruders, is not reasonable.

Reasonable is for the company to request, and obtain permission from the householder for each visit. This would normally be done for a reading by a simple knock at the door. If the meter is beyond a barrier, and the householder isn't in to give permission, then it is not reasonable to breach any physical barriers.

Terms & Conditions do not overule the law.

The questions don't change though, see the a), b) & c) points to UK1. Is this a new practice or is it what the old boards were doing?

In terms of reasonable, my point is that its open to individual and group interpretation. One interpretation is that in agreeing to a t&c asking for access, you have given them an agreement to try. That's not to say they can do what they want, but does it send a signal that its OK to open side gates?

The supplier would use that t&c to become compliant with the Tort as they have seemed your permission via contract at the beginning.

Jamie_Carter

Terrylw1 wrote: »

But the point is, its in your t&c's which you agreed to. So, by doing so, you have agreed to their need to access the meter.

Its an easy issue if its inside, they can't get in without asking you each time but for outside metering, you have given them access via the t&c's.

Again, the question is "what is reasonable?" and because this isn't defined, it is open to interpretation. What 1 customer feels is reasonable may differ to another and the same goes for suppliers & their agents.

I'm not saying anything is right or wrong, but I am saying everyone who could determine what should happen has chosen to hide behind "reasonable" and that term is so often a root cause to complaints and poor process.

Again, I ask the questions a) what do they all do, b) is this new or was it this way prior to deregulation, hence these companies still follow the old rules and c) are the meter readers really at fault?

I make the point of c) because the suppliers t&c's exist and the fact its often senior management who quietly endorse the practice but let their lower management create practices without understanding.

It's quite simple. Reasonable is what most householders would deem reasonable, as it is their property after all. If all the reader has to do is enter the front garden, and open the cupboard. Then that is quite reasonable without having to disturb the householder. What is unreasonable is for them to cross any secure barrier designed to keep intruders out, be it a gate or door to the rear of the property, or an outbuilding.

I think everyone except the people who actually do the reading can see this.

Terrylw1

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It's quite simple. Reasonable is what most householders would deem reasonable, as it is their property after all. If all the reader has to do is enter the front garden, and open the cupboard. Then that is quite reasonable without having to disturb the householder. What is unreasonable is for them to cross any secure barrier designed to keep intruders out, be it a gate or door to the rear of the property, or an outbuilding.

I think everyone except the people who actually do the reading can see this.

But when did this start? Is this a practice that took place prior to deregulation hence government backed? If it is, these people have continued the practice based on that approval.

Again, it depends on the customer. Its possible the meter could be down the side of the house with no barrier and some would feel a meter reader walking half way down the side of their house or even around to the rear, unreasonable.

uk1

Jamie you really are wasting your time here. i've stupidly tried to explain to him about the various acts, but the wax is too thick. I actually do know a bit about this but sadly I'm not as knowledgeabe about these things as the meter readers alegedly! Unfair contract terms act and the human rights stuff outranks turd behaviour. I now think there are two groups of people in the world. Meter readers and the rest.:)

I've printed and put the sign I previously suggested on the side window. This means it is now safer to presume that anyone I find behind a door or a gate isn't a meter reader and i can more safely presume they mean my family harm and i will take whatever action I feel approriate at that moment. We'll see what "great pleasure" as previously described by our friends they take next time they attempt to gain access without permission.

Terrylw1

uk1 wrote: »

Jamie you really are wasting your time here. i've stupidly tried to explain to him about the various acts, but the wax is too thick. I actually do know a bit about this but sadly I'm not as knowledgeabe about these things as the meter readers alegedly! Unfair contract terms act and the human rights stuff outranks turd behaviour. I now think there are two groups of people in the world. Meter readers and the rest.:)

I've printed and put the sign I previously suggested on the side window. This means it is now safer to presume that anyone I find behind a door or a gate isn't a meter reader and i can more safely presume they mean my family harm and i will take whatever action I feel approriate at that moment. We'll see what "great pleasure" as previously described by our friends they take next time they attempt to gain access without permission.

If you are aiming this comment at me, I'm not a meter reader and have interest in defending them. However, I do feel it is important to understand how the t&c's would apply since Ofgem are OK with them.

uk1

I suggest you simply read the two acts I cited. I work regularly with both of them. If you do read them and have any genuine questions about them I'll try and answer them. If i state "what I do " for a living I'll undoubtedly be called a liar as I have been several times in the thread. Perhaps it was my email address that encouraged G4S to call me?

Reading them will take you 10 minutes.

Terrylw1

uk1 wrote: »

I suggest you simply read the two acts I cited. I work regularly with both of them. If you do read them and have any genuine questions about them I'll try and answer them. If i state "what I do " for a living I'll undoubtedly be called a liar as I have been several times in the thread. Perhaps it was my email address that encouraged G4S to call me?

Reading them will take you 10 minutes.

Already have.

I'm just wondering why you continue to use insulting comments rather than engage in a debate?

If the contracts of all the energy suppliers are unfair, why do they exist? Why have Ofgem taken no action to have the offending terms removed?

There will be individuals who will break the rules in search of a commission and senior managers who will turn their heads until they are challenged. Is it different in any sector?

uk1

I think the issue isn't the contract terms but how they are mistakenly being interpreted. If they were intended to ask a consumer to forgo a basic human right - privacy- then they would have to be in big bold letters and be very clear at the otset - not just be small print. In any event you would have read that a court in deciding what is a fair term and what is not would apply several tests. One is the relative power of both sides of the contract. Here the utilty loses and the consumer wins. Is the clause clear and has no ambiguity. No it isn't. Is it fair. It obviously isn't. Are any human rights being breached. Yes.

Those are some of the issues involved.